All 33 Debates between Esther McVey and John Bercow

Thu 5th Jul 2018
Mon 4th Jun 2018
Tue 23rd Jan 2018
Mon 22nd Jan 2018
Mon 17th Jul 2017
Mon 23rd Jun 2014
Mon 24th Mar 2014
Wed 26th Feb 2014
Tue 12th Nov 2013
Tue 15th Jan 2013
Remploy Marine Fife
Commons Chamber
(Adjournment Debate)
Mon 10th Dec 2012
Remploy
Commons Chamber
(Urgent Question)
Mon 6th Sep 2010

Universal Credit

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Monday 5th November 2018

(6 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Warman Portrait Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Universal credit rolled out a couple of weeks ago in my constituency. Does the Secretary of State agree that the money she announced today will make a particular difference to people in my constituency who are often paid weekly or fortnightly, rather than monthly? It is often they who are the most vulnerable and who need the most help.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. Just before the Secretary of State responds to her hon. Friend, I am sure that what she said she said in all sincerity, but I am 99.9% recurring certain in my own mind that the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) was here at the start of—[Interruption.] Order. I am not debating the point with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). [Interruption.] Order. No facial expressions are required. I am just telling him and the House the situation. The hon. Lady was here—end of.

Esther McVey Portrait Ms McVey
- Hansard - -

It seems a moot point on both sides of the House whether or not the hon. Lady was here, but that being the case she will know that we have put an extra £4.5 billion into the system to support transitional protection. That is exactly what a fair Government would do: provide the correct transitional protection.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I would quite like to lighten the tension on this matter. May I just say to hon. Members, for the avoidance of doubt, that perambulation in the Chamber from one row to another is not an entirely novel phenomenon? May I say to the hon. Member for North Dorset, who is an old friend in the House of Commons, that it is not uncommon? The fact that a Member perambulates from one Bench to another does not mean that that Member has exited the Chamber. As far as I am concerned, the hon. Lady did not exit the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---
Esther McVey Portrait Ms McVey
- Hansard - -

Having met this charity group, too, I have said that I will work with it so that when we can, we listen, change and adapt what we need to do, which we have done so far since I have been in office, and we have the extra money through the Budget. That is what I am prepared to do.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I call a Member not given to perambulation—Dr Julian Lewis.

Julian Lewis Portrait Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am not certain what the attitude towards gambling is in the Secretary of State’s household, but would she care to place a bet that if the universal credit system is up and running and if, heaven forbid, the Labour party comes into government, it will be most unlikely to replace it with a mish-mash of different cross-cutting benefits such as existed previously?

--- Later in debate ---
John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. Points of order come after statements.

Esther McVey Portrait Ms McVey
- Hansard - -

They have been frightened to go into the jobcentre. I have many letters from people saying thank goodness we did this, because it is so much better than the legacy system it replaces.

Universal Credit

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Wednesday 17th October 2018

(6 years, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Esther McVey Portrait Ms McVey
- Hansard - -

I will indeed take a question. [Interruption.]

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, can I just point out that there are approximately 65 hon. and right hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate, and considerably less than four hours in which people can be called, so the less noise, the greater the progress.

Tim Farron Portrait Tim Farron
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

One in four workers in my constituency is self-employed—obviously, they are working and contributing. Is the Secretary of State aware that the minimum income floor means that many of them will be ineligible for universal credit if they cannot pay themselves the living wage in any given month? Surely we should be encouraging self-employed people, not penalising them.

--- Later in debate ---
Esther McVey Portrait Ms McVey
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend is exactly right. That is what Conservative Members agree about: helping people into work. For us, getting—[Interruption.]

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. I say to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), whose grinning countenance belies an aggressiveness of spirit in this matter, that it is not really in order to yell out, “On the same point,” as a way of trying to ensure that one is called.

--- Later in debate ---
John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Believe me, the hon. Gentleman does that perfectly satisfactorily in any case.

Esther McVey Portrait Ms McVey
- Hansard - -

Conservative Members have made sure that since 2010, 1,000 people each and every day have got a job. I want to give out a very, very important statistic that came out yesterday—youth unemployment has fallen by 50% since this Government have been in office. That is thousands of young people with a future that this Government have given them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Monday 15th October 2018

(6 years, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Esther McVey Portrait Ms McVey
- Hansard - -

The hon. Lady raises a good question about what happened under the previous Labour Government—[Interruption.] Can I just put this on the record, Mr Speaker? Under the previous Labour Government—[Interruption.] Labour Members are huffing, puffing, tutting and shaking their heads, but the number of households where no one had ever worked doubled under Labour. That is where the problem started and we are changing that. It has been a quick change—to 3.4 million people in work—and we have to help those people now to get a higher income, which we are doing.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I call Richard Graham. Why is he surprised by that? He is standing. Get in there.

Richard Graham Portrait Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

23. The Secretary of State knows that one of the difficulties with trying to correlate the people on universal credit with those who go to food banks is that there is no precise data to compare the two. I know anecdotally that the number of foreigners claiming food bank vouchers is quite high. Is there a state at which we can, with the Trussell Trust, arrange to have data that tells us much more about who is going to food banks and what sort of help they need, including DWP people in their food banks?

Universal Credit

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Thursday 5th July 2018

(6 years, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.

Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Very well. We will let him off this occasion.

Esther McVey Portrait The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Ms Esther McVey)
- Hansard - -

I had information that the question was on the letter that I received yesterday, so that is obviously where we will be going: the letter that I received yesterday. Opening the letter was a comment about a meeting that the Comptroller and Auditor General had asked to have with me. He had written to me on 27 June. Our Department got back at the end of the week and that meeting will be on Monday. There was possibly an inference from that that I had not accepted a meeting or that there was not going to be one. That was not the case, and it is diarised for Monday.

The next bit was about the information we had received, and accurate up-to-date information being shared with the Department. We agreed that information had been shared up to 6 June, but when we signed off the factual information contained within the report, we raised concerns about the context and conclusions drawn from that information and where we went from there.

That goes on to the impact of the recent changes. We looked at the impact of the changes we brought through: waiting days being abolished on 14 February, the housing benefit run-on on 11 April, and advance payments on 3 January. As I said in my apology yesterday, the impact of those changes is still being felt and the definition therefore cannot be that it has been fully taken into account by the NAO. They also talked about slowing down the process, which we always agreed with. This is about the test and learn process, and we will learn as we go along. That is what we agree with, too. The Comptroller and Auditor General also said in his letter:

“I’m also afraid that your statement in response to my report claiming Universal Credit is working had not been proven.”

That is where we differ on the conclusions. While the NAO had the same factual information either way, we came to very different conclusions because the impact of the changes we brought in at the end of that period is still being felt.

So that is where I would like to leave it—[Interruption.]

Esther McVey Portrait Ms McVey
- Hansard - -

At the end of the letter it says that

“the Department cannot measure the exact number of additional people in employment ”.

We agree with that. We cannot measure the exact number of people in employment, but we knew that there was a plausible range—which we had had support on—of people going into employment. We also know that employment is increasing. Those were the key pertinent points from the letter, and obviously included with my apology yesterday for the phrasing of the words I got wrong—which I fully accept, which is why I came to the House—I will end that bit of the statement there.

--- Later in debate ---
John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Thank you. [Interruption.] Order. I am a little disconcerted to see the SNP Front-Bench spokesman gesticulating at me as if to say, “What’s going on?” Forgive me, but I did say to the House very clearly that—[Interruption.] Order. It is no good shaking your head, I say to the hon. Lady, who is an extremely dextrous and committed Member of this House. She had a minute; she consumed her minute and I then move on. That is the right thing to do.

Esther McVey Portrait Ms McVey
- Hansard - -

We looked at the business case and looked through the conclusions, and for the £2 billion invested, there will be a £34 billion benefit to the UK economy over the next 10 years. We also foresee an increase in employment of 200,000. We believe that that is within the plausible range.

People want evidence, and we can give evidence about the changes this Government have brought through when we talk about getting people into work. We know we have got over 3.2 million people into work and we know we have got 600,000 disabled people into work in the last few years. At the time, we heard the assertions from Opposition Members. Labour said that 1 million more people would be unemployed if we pursued our policies—our changes to benefit and what else we did. That was never proved to be the case, yet I have never asked Labour to apologise for its misleading figures.

Points of Order

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Wednesday 4th July 2018

(6 years, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. We will come to the right hon. Lady later—I will not forget her—but first I call the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make a point of order.

Esther McVey Portrait The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Ms Esther McVey)
- Hansard - -

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. While speaking in Parliament in answer to questions on the National Audit Office report on universal credit, I mistakenly said that the NAO had asked for the roll-out of universal credit to continue at a faster rate and to be speeded up. In fact, the NAO did not say that, and I want to apologise—

None Portrait Hon. Members
- Hansard -

Resign!

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. This is rather unseemly. I know that passions run high, but the Secretary of State contacted me to say that she intended to say what she is about to say, and the House should hear her say it.

Esther McVey Portrait Ms McVey
- Hansard - -

I want to apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and the House for inadvertently misleading you. I meant to say that the NAO had said that there was no practical alternative to continuing with universal credit. We adopt a “test and learn” approach to the roll-out of universal credit, which the NAO says mainly follows good practice, and therefore the point I was trying to make was that the calls from the Labour party to pause it seemed to fly in the face of those conclusions. As you know, Mr Speaker, I asked you yesterday if I could come to the House to correct the record. I believe it is right that, as a Minister, I should come and correct the record, and I therefore hope that you will accept my apology.

On the other issues raised in the letter sent today by the NAO, the NAO contacted my office at the end of last week and we are working on setting up a meeting. On the NAO report not taking into account the impact of the recent changes to UC, I still maintain that this is the case, and those changes include the housing benefit run-on, the 100% advances and the removal of waiting days. The impact of those changes is still being felt and therefore, by definition, could not have been fully taken into account by the NAO report. I hope that that clarifies the position.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I can confirm that the Secretary of State most certainly did contact me last night indicating that she would like to apologise on a point of order, and I certainly accept her apology.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Monday 2nd July 2018

(6 years, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Esther McVey Portrait Ms McVey
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend has made a very good point. When we speak to the people who are working with the system day in, day out, they say that it is the best system that they have ever seen, and it is about a “test and learn” process. Listening to what is said in the House, one would not believe that over 3.2 million more people were in work. That is not something that happens by mistake. It is as a result of the hard work of our work coaches and the direction that is being set by the Government.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am extraordinarily grateful to the Secretary of State, whose answers I always enjoy. The only point that I would make, gently, to colleagues on both sides of the House is that we have a lot of questions to get through, so we do need to be briefer—and that is now to be exemplified by no less a figure in the House than Mr Frank Field.

Lord Field of Birkenhead Portrait Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the Secretary of State commission a report on real-time income, which for many of our constituents provides neither real-time information nor income and results in hardship, and publish that report?

--- Later in debate ---
John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I think that it is all perfectly clear, as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) knows.

Esther McVey Portrait Ms McVey
- Hansard - -

My right hon. Friend is in the Chamber much of the time, so he might have heard me talk about this complicated issue quite a bit. It is about not just the last day of every month, but people who might have differing pay packets—they might be paid weekly, fortnightly or four-weekly rather than monthly. A recipient might not get their UC in a month because they have two pay packets falling within that month. What we can do straightaway is this: the person has their entitlement to benefits, and they will then sign on again the month after and remain in UC. We are providing guidance and support for both claimants and employees so that people stay on a cushion of benefit, but the system reflects their fluctuating wage.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Well, we are all now considerably better informed.

Barry Sheerman Portrait Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

T2. If the Secretary of State wants people to have confidence in her Department, what is she doing about Motability? Is it true that its chief executive is on £1.7 million and that it has reserves of £2.4 billion? Many people who are struggling support Motability, but they want to know what is going on.

--- Later in debate ---
John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am even more pleased that Roger Federer won his opening match in straight sets in less than an hour and a half. Conveniently it finished just before Question Time began—that was very helpful.

Esther McVey Portrait Ms McVey
- Hansard - -

Then everyone is a winner today in this Chamber.

My hon. Friend is right. I have met representatives of the agricultural industry. What was key was people understanding what opportunities are out there, what the work entails and the wage that it pays, and the fact that universal credit supports people in and out of work, which means that they can take up these job opportunities.

Personal Independence Payments

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Monday 4th June 2018

(6 years, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.

Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Esther McVey Portrait Ms McVey
- Hansard - -

If I did not say it clearly enough at the start, this was an urgent question granted specifically on two cases. There is another case going through the court at the moment, which would be sub judice and I would not be allowed to speak about it at the Dispatch Box—[Interruption.]

Esther McVey Portrait Ms McVey
- Hansard - -

So today, we are discussing those two specific cases and that is what I am talking about. I appreciate that there is a lot of noise from Opposition Members, but they obviously do not understand what sub judice means—[Interruption.]

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. The Government are a party to the case, and I am advised that, strictly speaking, the case is not sub judice—[Interruption.] Order. There seems to be a lot of noise and all sorts of naysaying and unattractive chuntering from a sedentary position. If the Secretary of State wished to go beyond the narrow terms of the urgent question, especially in view of the fact that its wording refers to “further action” by the Government, the Chair would not wish to stand in her way. It is a matter for her to judge. However, there is no need for this cacophony from a sedentary position. It is really rather unseemly, and I feel sure that it will now cease.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Monday 26th March 2018

(6 years, 8 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Esther McVey Portrait Ms McVey
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend is correct. Three independent studies are saying that universal credit is getting people into work quicker, and that they are staying in work longer and also looking for more work. He is exactly right about the trusted partner status. The reason he has started to do extra work with his jobcentre, looking at tenants who might not have a roof over their head, was the false information cited in Prime Minister’s questions by Jeremy Corbyn, who said that one in eight would be evicted. That was not the case, and, as we are seeing, people are now getting into work and their homes are being protected.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I say gently to the Secretary of State that one must not refer to other Members by name. The right hon. Member for Islington North is the Leader of the Opposition, but he should not be referred to by name.

Lord Field of Birkenhead Portrait Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I ask the Secretary of State not to give an immediate reply to this question but to ponder it. The Secretary of State has told me that the 98 members of jobcentre staff on temporary contracts in Birkenhead are going to be laid off because they have come to the end of their contract period. Unlike Gloucester, we are having real problems with the roll-out of universal credit. I had five cases last week, including one involving a woman who had been reduced to living on 7p. Might not some, if not all, of those staff be redeployed to ensure a smooth transition from traditional benefits to the new one?

--- Later in debate ---
Jeremy Quin Portrait Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I commend my right hon. Friend for the roll-out of universal credit. How does that compare with the debacle that was the implementation of tax credits under a previous Government?

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. No dilation is required. A pithy encapsulation of what the Secretary of State regards as her personal triumph is one thing, but a lengthy denigration of the policies of the previous Government would be another.

Esther McVey Portrait Ms McVey
- Hansard - -

Universal credit is working, and it had to be put in place, in part because the Opposition’s tax credits were a failure.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Very fleet of foot.

--- Later in debate ---
Esther McVey Portrait Ms McVey
- Hansard - -

You can’t have it that we are not helping enough people and then, on the other hand, that we are. What we have said is that this has always been for people who were not in work or those on low incomes. What we have done is slightly raise the threshold, and now more children who need free school meals are getting them. That is something that this Conservative Government are doing. I would also like to welcome the rise in employment in the last quarter in the south-west area and the hon. Gentleman’s seat by another 48,000 people. That is more people in work who can help their children.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

A short sentence of Walsall eloquence—Eddie Hughes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Monday 5th February 2018

(6 years, 10 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Esther McVey Portrait Ms McVey
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend puts it so eloquently. It is about time that Opposition Members apologise for their scaremongering.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Even mothers and mathematicians have to respect the method, and the method in the House is that Members question Ministers about the Government’s policies. I do not blame the Secretary of State for taking the opportunity to ram home her point with force and alacrity, but Members must understand that this is not Question Time about the policies, tactics or preferences of the Opposition; this is Question Time about the policies of the Government. Even if there is some Whip handout saying, “Ask the Minister about the behaviour of the Labour party,” that does not make it in order. It is not in order—end of subject.

--- Later in debate ---
John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I think not. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is gesticulating at me in a mildly appealing fashion, but she has made her points with considerable force and requires no further opportunity now.

Esther McVey Portrait Ms McVey
- Hansard - -

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I will lay the letter from the UK Statistics Authority in the Library, so that other people can read it.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

That is a perfectly reasonable course of action for the Secretary of State to take, but it is not a point of order. It might be called a point of information that some colleagues will find helpful.

Personal Independence Payment

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Tuesday 23rd January 2018

(6 years, 11 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.

Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Esther McVey Portrait Ms McVey
- Hansard - -

I will keep to the word “discriminate”, and obviously we do not want to do that. Ultimately we will be making the decisions, but it is imperative that we get them right.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I call Jeremy Quin.

Jeremy Quin Portrait Jeremy Quin
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

And finally, Mr Speaker.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that PIP claimants, including those who will benefit from her decision, which I warmly welcome, will not be subject to the benefit cap in respect of these payments, and that payments will continue to be untaxed and, indeed, will rise by the rate of inflation?

Points of Order

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Monday 22nd January 2018

(6 years, 11 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. In short, I have received no notification from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions of an intention to make a statement on that matter. As the hon. Lady will know, the Secretary of State is in her place; she is welcome to come to the Dispatch Box and respond if she wishes, but she is under no obligation to do so.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

She does not wish to do so at this time. The hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) should table questions and see where she gets. If she and her colleagues judge that they wish to seek a debate on the matter, it is open to them to do so. For now, she has aired her concern and it will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Tuesday 24th October 2017

(7 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I hope that the whole House will join me in congratulating very warmly the right hon. Member for Tatton (Ms McVey) on her significant birthday today.

Esther McVey Portrait Ms Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
- Hansard - -

I am older and, I hope, wiser. Like all the ladies who are at my age, I am just hitting my stride and coming of age.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Wednesday 18th October 2017

(7 years, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Esther McVey Portrait Ms McVey
- Hansard - -

Will the Prime Minister reaffirm her Government’s commitment to the northern powerhouse? Will she set out the specific schemes—[Interruption.]

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. The right hon. Lady has never been silenced and, as far as I am concerned, she never will be.

Esther McVey Portrait Ms McVey
- Hansard - -

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The importance of the north will be heard.

Will the Prime Minister set out the schemes that she seeks to prioritise, and does she agree that the only norths that are in tune with the Leader of the Opposition’s political correctness and Marxism are Islington North and North Korea? [Interruption.]

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. We have 32 questions to get through and I want to hear the Prime Minister’s answer. I ask colleagues to contain themselves.

HS2 Update

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Monday 17th July 2017

(7 years, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Tatton or Shipley? Esther McVey.

Esther McVey Portrait Ms McVey
- Hansard - -

Good choice, Mr Speaker.

I appreciate that the Secretary of State is seeking to be decisive, but my constituents in Tatton are deeply concerned by what they hear in the media. Will he ensure that my constituents, and I as their representative in Parliament, will be fully involved in the decisions that will hugely affect them, and that he and High Speed 2 will not ride roughshod over their legitimate concerns?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Monday 9th March 2015

(9 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey
- Hansard - -

We know that over 99.4% people on ESA and with a mental health condition are not sanctioned, so only 0.6% are. Again, we look to see how we work with people; and for very vulnerable people there is clear guidance on what counts as good cause, so they would know how and why they would not be sanctioned. We always know we need to do more. We have various pilots going on that seek better to understand people with mental health conditions.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am reminded of the feeling when one thinks the washing machine will stop—but it does not!

Eilidh Whiteford Portrait Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Over 143,000 benefit sanctions were imposed in Scotland in the two years from October 2012, and one in four food bank users is using them because of delays in the benefit system. Yet today we read in the Financial Times that the Tories are planning to cut 30,000 jobs from the Department for Work and Pensions if they win the next election, most of them in the nations and regions. Is this not a recipe for further chaos and misery? Do not both claimants and DWP staff deserve better?

Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey
- Hansard - -

For the sake of brevity and clarity, those figures are not true at all.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

That was exemplary brevity and clarity, I must concede.

--- Later in debate ---
Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend is quite right. University is one route into work, and if it works for people that is great, but apprenticeships are another route, and this Government have done more than any other to get young people into apprenticeships—there are now more than 2 million apprentices—and into work. I know that my hon. Friend works closely with his university and local businesses to make that happen.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

We are running late, but this is the last Work and Pensions Question Time of the Parliament and there are two colleagues I wish to accommodate.

Points of Order

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Monday 9th March 2015

(9 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. All I need say is twofold. First, the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record. Secondly, the way I would prefer to characterise it—I am not arguing with the hon. Gentleman—is that the Minister of State is an extremely robust character who can make her own case with force and skill, as she has done on several occasions today, and indeed at all times. If the Minister, who felt aggressed against and to an extent aggrieved, wishes to speak briefly on the matter, I would of course give her that opportunity.

Esther McVey Portrait The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey)
- Hansard - -

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The reason I want this put on the record is that it is not the first time Opposition Members have been like this to me. John McDonnell came to my constituency and asked people—I know this is unparliamentary language—to “lynch the bitch” live in Wirral West. That is what Labour Members ask people to do in other people’s constituencies. The Opposition have form. [Interruption.]

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. My role is to seek to defuse this. There are strongly held views on both sides. I asked the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) to raise his point of order and he did, and I thought it right that the Minister of State should have a right of reply and she has had it. I understand there are strong feelings. Let us try to preserve the courtesies as best we can in the days and weeks ahead. In all sincerity, I thank—and I mean that—both Members for having made their contribution. We will leave it there.

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

Ordered,

That the Order of 2 February 2015 (Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows:

(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.

(2) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion, at today’s sitting, two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order.

(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion, at today’s sitting, three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order.—(Anna Soubry.)

Points of Order

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Monday 23rd June 2014

(10 years, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Minister is welcome to respond if she so wishes.

Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey
- Hansard - -

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I gave the official statistics, and I was correct.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Well, we will leave it there for today, but knowing the hon. Lady—

Inherited Social Housing Tenancies

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Monday 24th March 2014

(10 years, 8 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.

Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford Portrait Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I was surprised to read today in my local paper, The Oxford Times, that Oxford city council has spent only two thirds of its discretionary housing funds for 2013-14, leaving £200,000 meant for the most vulnerable unspent. May I therefore ask for the Minister’s guidance on how this fund can be better applied to inherited social housing tenancies and others?

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

An exceptionally interesting question, but its relationship with the urgent question tabled is, to put it kindly, tangential. However, let us hear the Minister as the product of her grey cells may prove me wrong.

Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend is right that there are quite a few local authorities that have not spent the full amount, and it is that money that can be utilised here for those who have inherited a house or a property in that way. This is what the money is there for.

Points of Order

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Wednesday 26th February 2014

(10 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her attempted point of order. I think that it is fair to say that, on the strength of what I have heard, although the matter is of extreme concern to her, nothing disorderly has occurred. As the Minister is present, she is free to respond from the Dispatch Box if she so wishes, although she is under no obligation.

Esther McVey Portrait The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)
- Hansard - -

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I did indeed reply to the hon. Lady. I know that she has tried to extend the commitment to an independent review. We said that we would monitor and review, and we currently have replies coming back in relation to a review by Matt Oakley. I know that that is the correct reply and that she has received several replies. I hope that that is the matter closed for the time being.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank the Minister for what she has said. The issue has been aired and I know that Members will accept that we cannot have a wider debate on it now.

Housing Benefit

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Tuesday 12th November 2013

(11 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Esther McVey Portrait The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)
- Hansard - -

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this lively and, at times, loud debate. We have heard many speeches in the past five and a half hours and many issues have been raised. Labour Members have passed much speculation as certainty. They all called for the spare room subsidy to remain. There has been much passion—[Interruption]and much shouting out like that. However, unfortunately, Labour Members have given us no answers—they have given not one single answer to the problems left by the previous Labour Government. Not one Labour Member confronted the nub of the problem or tackled the issues at hand, or addressed the many interdependent issues that have made the removal of the spare room subsidy necessary.

Let us therefore remind hon. Members of the complex mix and the delicate balance that we must get right, which we are doing. Some 400,000 people are in overcrowded accommodation, and nearly 2 million people—[Interruption.]

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. There is too much noise in the Chamber. Members must not shout at the Minister. The Minister’s response to the debate must be heard.

Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey
- Hansard - -

Just like I am being shouted down now, the voices of nearly 2 million people on waiting lists have been shouted down and, unfortunately, the 400,000 people in overcrowded accommodation are not being listened to.

We have two different legal systems within one—it does different things for people in the private rented sector and for people in the social rented sector. Opposition Members want to remove the reversal of the spare room subsidy, but I want to throw a question out there. If they retain the spare room subsidy, I believe a legal challenge is on the way from people in the private sector, who want the same policy to apply to them. If Labour reverses our policy, that is not tough on fiscal responsibility. Instead, Labour will spend yet more, which is typical Labour: spend more and increase benefits, and ignore the problem altogether.

Hon. Members have asked whether the policy was about saving money, getting the housing stock right or getting the right people into social houses. Actually, we must do all those things. That is why, as we are solving those problems, £4.5 billion will be put into new building, so we will have 170,000 new houses by 2015. A further £3.3 billion will mean we have another 65,000 houses by 2018.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) said that Members on each side of the House are different and she is quite right: those on the Opposition Benches deliver problems and those on the coalition Government Benches have to solve them. The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) asked what the difference is between the Government side and the Opposition side of the House. The Opposition drove us into recession, never thinking about what they were spending and never living within their means. We are digging them out of that recession.

Yasmin Qureshi Portrait Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

What would the hon. Lady say to my constituents, Mr and Mrs Wilkes? Mrs Wilkes has a back problem and is disabled. Her husband cannot share a bed with her, much as he would like to, and has to stay in the second room. They are having to pay the bedroom tax. [Interruption.]

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. Interventions must be brief. I think we got the gist and we are grateful to the hon. Lady.

Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey
- Hansard - -

We have listened to all of those issues and trebled the discretionary housing payment. That is why people have a responsibility to help those people.

The Opposition’s figures—surprisingly—do not always stack up. We talked about how we are going to find new homes for different people and how we are going to support them to move into accommodation—all the things we should be doing. Yes, 660,000 people are affected by these changes, but only earlier today I spoke to one of the biggest online home swap companies. It has 320,000 accommodations for people to move to. By the way, it has only 6.7% market share, so we are easily able, should we be working in this way, to find houses for people to swap. [Interruption.]

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. There is simply too much noise in the Chamber. It is not possible to hear what the Minister is saying. [Interruption.] Order. The Minister must and will be heard.

Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey
- Hansard - -

I would like to raise the example of Susannah from south Yorkshire. She had had four children and did not necessarily want to move. In the end, she looked around for six months and moved. She said, “Actually, I wished I’d had that support earlier, because now I am in an area I prefer. I have downsized. I have a smaller house, which means that my cost of living is less. I am paying less on cleaning and less on heating, and I can live within my means.” I have a list of people like that. I ask Opposition Members to work with their local authorities and their constituents to help them downsize so they can live within their means. I know that living within one’s means is not something Opposition Members understand, but that is what we all have to do as a country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Monday 20th May 2013

(11 years, 7 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rosie Cooper Portrait Rosie Cooper
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It came as a great shock to my constituents that the new regulations will see the removal of the Motability lease payments after 28 days of a person’s being in hospital. Will the Minister explain why she is prepared to leave disabled people worried about going into hospital and potentially losing their Motability car, losing their deposit and having to restart the whole process when they come out? They will be worried about what it will mean for them to reapply for a new car with new adaptations that requires a new deposit. Additional administration will fall on the Department for Work and Pensions, so who will bear the cost incurred when the exclusively and specifically adapted Motability cars have to be returned—

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. I think that the hon. Lady’s essay —perhaps even her thesis—has been completed.

Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey
- Hansard - -

Obviously, I do not know the specific details of the case, but when somebody is in hospital for a long time they will not need the Motability car. However, every case is taken on its specifics and everything is dealt with in the most sensitive way. That has always been the case with Motability cars.

--- Later in debate ---
Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey
- Hansard - -

I was not exactly sure where the right hon. Gentleman was going with that question. The PIP was introduced to support the most vulnerable and to make it as easy as possible to do so, and to ensure that people who could not fill in a self-assessment form could see somebody on a one-to-one basis. This is the biggest ever change in welfare. I thank all the people who have helped with it in Jobcentre Pluses, and the stakeholders. Over 1,000 disabled people got involved to make sure that the system was right, and I thank them for making it a good transition to a new benefit.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Minister can always have a cup of tea with her right hon. Friend if any further clarification is required.

Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Wednesday 27th February 2013

(11 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Esther McVey Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)
- Hansard - -

I thank Members on both sides of the House for their valuable contributions to this important debate. It is good to have an opportunity to respond to a number of the points that were raised, and also to correct some inaccuracies.

Having listened to the whole debate, I know that there are some issues on which we all agree. Consensus is an important point at which to start, because we are all looking for a solution to a problem that the coalition Government have been handed, so I will begin by listing the facts on which we are agreed.

There is a considerable lack of social homes, because very few have been built in recent years. The Secretary of State has referred to a complete collapse in the building of social housing under the last Government. Housing benefit has doubled in the last 10 years. We all agree that we will have to manage the bill for that, but how are we going to deal with it? How are we going to find a solution to such a large problem? We all probably agree, too, that fairness must be at the heart of that solution: fairness to those who are in overcrowded homes, fairness to those who are under-occupying, and fairness to the taxpayer.

Let me begin, however, with the removal of discrepancies in the rented sector between those who are privately renting and those who are socially renting. An arrangement whereby people living next door to each other are renting under different systems is innately unfair, and must be addressed. I think all Members will be pleased to hear that I shall be taking Labour’s lead in this instance. Labour introduced the local housing allowance for private sector tenants who did not receive housing benefit for a spare bedroom, which seems a good point at which to start. We are doing the same, in that we are introducing equality in the system for everyone who is renting.

The second issue that we must tackle is the problem of people who are living in overcrowded accommodation. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, a quarter of a million people are in that position. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) also mentioned those people, but Opposition Members refused to discuss them.

We also all agree that we are talking about family homes. They are not just houses; people have lived in them. That is why we have exempted those who are above the state pension credit age. We recognise that pensioners would be particularly affected by these changes. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) reminded Labour Members what they had repeated time and again. They must get a grip of the housing benefit bill. They never managed to do that in government, but they must do it if they are to be even a credible Opposition.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea made a very important point. When Opposition Members said that they would vote against the measure because they disagreed with it, she challenged them by asking whether they would reverse it and put that in their manifesto. Silence came from the Opposition Benches.

On discretionary housing payments, many Members raised specific issues and complex cases. Specific groups were identified, such as foster carers and people who live in houses with major disability adaptations. Rather than central Government defining exactly what should happen in every case, we have allocated the money we think is needed and given it to local authorities so they can respond on a case-by-case basis. Such local discretion is right. We might think that many different individuals should be exempt, but it would be impossible to write that into regulations and statutory instruments. That is why we have allocated discretionary housing payments of £60 million this year and £155 million next year to local authorities.

In the past, discretionary payments have been seen as a temporary fix for a short-term problem. However, under the new system these new payments can be for the long term, because some situations will not change, and if someone lives in a house that has been substantially adapted, they will need to keep it.

We have debated this subject for over six hours and many inaccurate things were said and many questions were raised and remained unanswered, so I will canter through quite a few of them. The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) asked about children at university. Children absent at college are covered by the normal rates of absences and will not be affected if they are returning for holidays. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) asked whether people can apply ahead of their need arising. They can: they can apply for these payments now, although, obviously, they will not be paid until the payment is needed.

The hon. Members for Dundee East and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about people with a disability who need an overnight carer. Obviously, they are exempt, regardless of whether they need an overnight carer all the time or just occasionally. Again, Opposition Members got their facts wrong.

The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) questioned the number of spare bedrooms. There are 1 million spare bedrooms in properties occupied by working-age people alone, so that does not include pensioners. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) asked why Lord Freud could not attend a meeting. He could not do so because he was involved in a debate in the other place. However, I am happy to confirm that he will make that visit very soon. That is being arranged with the Secretary of State.

The hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) said that if people are moving around, this policy will not save any money. That is incorrect. She is not taking account of the previous circumstances of the people who will be moving into the vacated properties. [Interruption.] They may have been in more expensive private or temporary accommodation, so this dynamic benefit will save money. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are perpetuating inaccurate myths. [Interruption.]

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) is shouting more loudly at the Minister than I shouted for Arsenal at the Emirates last Saturday. It really will not do.

Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey
- Hansard - -

The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) talked about under-occupancy among homeowners and asked what we are doing about that. The Government support homeowners taking in a lodger if they wish, just as we do for people in social housing. There will be a £4,250 income tax exemption should somebody want to take in a lodger.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) talked about borrowing more money. We cannot keep on borrowing. That is what got us into this situation. We need to stop borrowing and start living within our means.

Let me finish dealing with the questions that were raised. Many hon. Members asked about the cost of moving—

Remploy Marine Fife

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Tuesday 15th January 2013

(11 years, 11 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey
- Hansard - -

I will meet Members in Scotland and all the relevant parties.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Is the Minister giving way or has she concluded?

Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey
- Hansard - -

I have concluded.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Monday 10th December 2012

(12 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey
- Hansard - -

I know that this issue is of great interest to the hon. Lady, sitting as she does on the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee, so I listened with great interest—[Interruption.] Apologies, but I am correct in saying that you have a great interest in this subject. I do not know the specific issues relating to the case that you mention. We will obviously look into it, but I have to say that this constituent of yours would have been assessed under the DLA arrangements—it is for that very reason that we are bringing in the new personal independence payment assessment and criteria.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Let me remind the Minister that her answers should be addressed through the Chair. She has just referred to my constituent. I would have been delighted to have had my constituent addressed, but it would not have been appropriate here and now. We will move on.

--- Later in debate ---
Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey
- Hansard - -

I will reiterate what a household is: a household is a basic family unit, and for the purposes of paying out-of-work benefits that will be a single adult or a couple and children, so once another adult is in the house, that is a separate household. [Interruption.] That has been the definition for a very long time. However, in the instances the hon. Lady mentions, discretionary payments are available and will come to fruition. [Interruption.] There is no point in Opposition Members huffing and puffing. That is the situation, and an extra £30 million has been put in place for this. [Interruption.]

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. I have no idea what the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) had for breakfast this morning. All I can say is that he is a bear growling exceptionally, and some would say excessively, loudly this afternoon.

Remploy

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Monday 10th December 2012

(12 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.

Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Esther McVey Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)
- Hansard - -

I am grateful for the opportunity to provide the House with an update on Remploy. On Thursday, I laid a written statement in the House about stage 2 of Remploy factories—a continuation of a process announced by my predecessor, now Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, on 7 March. She then gave a further statement to the House on 10 July. In it, the Remploy board announced the outcome of its analysis of the remaining stage 2 businesses. Remploy will now start a commercial process to mitigate potential job losses. At this stage, no final decisions have been made about factory closures or redundancies. Our priority throughout the process is to safeguard jobs, which is why we are offering a wage subsidy of £6,400 for each disabled employee to encourage interested parties to come forward.

We want substantially to improve employment opportunities for all disabled people. We engaged with disability experts and organisations to undertake a review of our specialist disability employment support. The Sayce review findings and the responses we received to the public consultation strongly supported the idea of moving away from the Remploy model for disabled people.

The first point that I want to make is that a sixth of the money for the sustained employment of disabled people is currently spent on supporting the Remploy factories, which means that a sixth of the budget went to 2,200 out of 6.9 million disabled people of working age. I remind the House that, before the last Government closed 29 factories, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) said:

“The reality is that without modernisation Remploy deficits would obliterate our other programmes to help disabled people into mainstream work.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 448.]

The current Government are committed to protecting the budget of £320 million for specialist disability employment support, but we know that we must use that money much more effectively to help far more disabled people to fulfil their ambitions and move into mainstream work. In these economically difficult times, it is more important than ever for the Government’s disability employment programmes to represent value for money and to deliver the most effective possible support to help disabled people to find and keep employment.

Remploy has faced an uncertain future for many years, and in 2008, under the last Government, 29 factories closed. A modernisation plan failed, having set excessively ambitious targets which were never achieved. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) knows that only too well. As a result, the factories have become increasingly loss-making, and their future has become more precarious. That has left all staff in a vulnerable position. The answer must be to find them work and help them into mainstream employment, and the changes that are being made are focused on ensuring that they all obtain long-term, sustainable jobs.

I do, of course, understand how unsettling it is for Remploy employees to find that they are faced with the threat of losing their jobs. I know that a large number of them have given many years of service, and that they now face the prospect of looking for alternative work. That is why we set up the people help and support package especially for them. All disabled Remploy staff affected by the changes who give their consent will be guaranteed access to £8 million of tailored support to help them to find alternative employment. Despite a slow start, we are making a number of improvements to the package. Over the past three months, 148 of the 960 or so disabled people who have come forward to work with us and our personal case workers have found employment. We have every expectation that the number of job outcomes, which is already increasing daily, will increase further. We are monitoring and tracking these people and helping them to obtain work, which is something that the last Government never did when they closed their factories.

Jobcentre Plus reached agreements today with five major national employers—some of the biggest high street retailers and restaurant chains—to help ex-Remploy staff into work, and they will also have access to support from Remploy Employment Services. Since 2010, despite the tough economic climate, it has found 50,000 jobs for disabled and disadvantaged people, many of whose disabilities are similar to those of staff in Remploy factories.

Let me give a few instances of former Remploy staff who have begun work in a vast array of jobs. Four former employees from Aberdeen have started a co-operative business in their old factory. Red Rock Data Processing Services in Wigan is reopening its factory and employing former Remploy staff. Ex-employees have found work at Dekko Windows in Oldham, Camborne college in Penzance and Hayman Construction in Plymouth, and at Asda. All those people are moving into mainstream work, and I expect that, as the support continues, we shall see an increasing number of such good outcomes.

I have met many Members on both sides of the House to discuss this matter, and I shall continue to do so. We seek the best possible outcomes and opportunities for all Remploy staff.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am grateful to the Minister. She did somewhat exceed her allotted time, which simply means that I must allow some modest latitude to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne).

Liam Byrne Portrait Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

May I start, Mr Speaker, by saying how grateful we are to you for allowing this urgent question this afternoon? I say to the Minister that, frankly, it is shameful that her Department tried to sneak out through a written ministerial statement last week news that it was shutting a further 10 Remploy factories and putting five more at risk. It was a mark of contempt for Remploy workers that the Minister sought to duck a debate in the House.

This statement marks the destruction of a tradition that stretches back to the foundation of the welfare state. If there is an ideal that Labour Members cherish, it is that the welfare state should be strong on the ethic to work and strong on the ethic to care. Remploy epitomises both those ideals, yet over the past year all we have heard from the Government is one plan after another to close Remploy down, without any regard for how its workers are connected to a future—to jobs and prosperity in the years to come.

Months ago, a Minister from this Department promised the House that the Government would move hell and high water to ensure sacked Remploy workers got into jobs, yet today about 90% of those workers sacked this year are still out of work. That is not good enough. The Work programme is not delivering for disabled people. Fewer than 1% of people on employment and support allowance have been found sustained jobs. When we undertook the modernisation of Remploy, we set aside £500 million to help support the process. I am afraid that is in sharp contrast to what we heard from the Minister this afternoon.

It is now apparent that this closure programme must stop until we are clear about what has gone wrong in getting sacked Remploy workers back into jobs. We need to learn far more from the example set by the Welsh Government, who have already provided 97 opportunities for 250 workers who have lost their jobs. The Minister will have heard, as I have, just how important this is, because she will know, as I do, that for Remploy workers their job is far more than simply an income; it is their connection to a social network and to a world outside. It is often everything to them.

Let me ask the Minister this: will she apologise to the House for trying to sneak this announcement out through a written ministerial statement? Especially after the Secretary of State dismissed Remploy workers as doing nothing more than sitting around drinking coffee, I think that that would be an appropriate gesture. Will the Minister stop this closure programme until we have a report on the table from her Department about what has gone wrong in getting the workers sacked earlier this year back into jobs? Specifically in respect of Wales, will she take up the proposal of Leighton Andrews that two factories in Wales be transferred to the Welsh Government, because although she does not feel they have a future, the Government of Wales certainly do?

--- Later in debate ---
John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. I am sure the Minister was not suggesting that anybody would knowingly mislead the House.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I was guilty of many cheap gibes and bluster as a Back Bencher, but the Speaker does not engage in cheap gibes or bluster. Just as long as we are clear about that—very good.

Conor Burns Portrait Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Minister will be aware that the Remploy factory at Alder Hills in my constituency closed; she wrote to tell me that it was closing in her first days in her new job. She will also be aware that Giles Verdon and his team at that factory were working to put together a community interest company. May I tell her that in all their dealings with Remploy centrally phone calls went unanswered, information requested was not forthcoming and deadlines were too short? They did not stand a chance. Will she agree to meet me and representatives of Remploy in Poole so that they can tell her about their experience in dealing with Remploy centrally?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Thursday 22nd November 2012

(12 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey
- Hansard - -

The hon. Lady represents the constituency next to mine and we should both celebrate the fact that employment figures are up for every age group, locally, nationally and regionally. The unemployment rate for people over 50 is 4.5%, and for women over 50 it is 3.5%. Those figures are lower than the total unemployment rate of 7.8%. I would question your facts.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. I am sure the Minister is not questioning my facts, but I think I have the gist of what she is saying.

Tom Blenkinsop Portrait Tom Blenkinsop
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Over the past two years, long-term unemployment among young women increased by 412% on Teesside, with 640 women aged 24 and under claiming jobseeker’s allowance for more than 12 months. Does the Minister agree with figures from the Office for National Statistics which show that under this Government, long-term youth unemployment among women on Teesside has skyrocketed, and what will she do about it?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Monday 10th September 2012

(12 years, 3 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey
- Hansard - -

I assure my hon. Friend that assessments will fully reflect the changes that are required for blind and partially sighted people, and that there will not be any discrimination like that. We have not finished consulting; it is an ongoing process. We have listened to people’s concerns and altered the assessment as it goes, and we will be taking all of this into account.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I call Mr Gavin Shuker. Not here. I call Paul Goggins.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Monday 27th February 2012

(12 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

If I had known that on Thursday night when I was in Hull I might have told my audience. I didn’t, so I couldn’t, but never mind.

Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
- Hansard - -

Having done much work in career guidance and helping young people to enter work, I am now working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to do real-life pilot schemes with real-life business advisers. Could I meet the Minister so that we can have the best cross-departmental support for that scheme?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Wednesday 14th December 2011

(13 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. It is normally a great pleasure to hear from the hon. Lady, but the Wirral is a little distance away from Calder Valley, to which this question exclusively relates. We will save her up for another occasion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Thursday 10th March 2011

(13 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Robert Flello is not here. I call Esther McVey.

Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
- Hansard - -

6. What recent representations she has received on the regulation of airbrushed images of women in the media.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Thursday 25th November 2010

(14 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. I am very grateful to the Minister.

Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
- Hansard - -

15. If he will take steps to encourage community ownership of local assets and facilities.

Public Expenditure Reductions (Women)

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Monday 6th September 2010

(14 years, 3 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
- Hansard - -

I am delighted that the hon. Lady has raised this issue in the Chamber tonight, because I have worked with women in business for the past 10 years. On everything that she talks about—every consequence, every dilemma and every situation that women are in—she has to look to her Government and ask why we are in this disastrous economic state, and she has to bear the responsibility for what is happening. The picture for women in business is mixed. The latest results coming out this week say that a third of women are now the main breadwinner, 39% earn more than their partners and 19%—

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. Could I just very gently say to the hon. Lady that if this is an intervention—and it is—it needs to come to a conclusion very soon?

Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey
- Hansard - -

My point is that we have to move forward, and the Conservative party is looking at how to get the 150,000 women who are not setting up businesses—when compared with the number of men who are—to do so. That would be worth £7 billion to the economy. What would the hon. Lady’s advice be to women on how to even out the economy?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and John Bercow
Monday 12th July 2010

(14 years, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. May I gently say to Members that Stoke-on-Trent and Chesterfield are a considerable distance from Skipton and Ripon and, more widely, North Yorkshire? This is what we call a closed question, I am afraid.

Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
- Hansard - -

4. What steps his Department is taking through the education system to assist children from poor families.